Right Smears John Brennan as “Arabist,” Ignores Purge of “Arabist” James Baker Wing

[graphic via Salon.com]

IF YOU want to start dissecting what’s happened to the sane branch of the Republican Party, it dates back to Georg H.W. Bush and James Baker, a time when realism in foreign policy took over for Ronald Reagan’s ramshackle militarism that led to Iran-Contra and near impeachment.

The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party “¦ very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel “¦ .”How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists, by Patrick J. Buchanan [March 2012]

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline has gone off on the notion of John Brennan being an “Arabist,” finding the speech of Brennan below damning, while attempting to once again stir up the lies about President Obama on Israel.

As to Israel, Brennan said, “it’s tough, but we’re not going to separate ourselves from Israel.” He did not say why it’s such a burden not to “separate” from Israel ““ our staunch ally since its birth. But as Obama proceeds to effectuate such a separation, the point is increasingly moot.

Neoconservatives, led by Bill Kristol, parroted by Dan SeÃƒÂ±or, who was thoroughly embarrassed on “Morning Joe” today, want to continue their rule, which religious conservatives make easier. The continued result is what happened to U.S. foreign policy under George W. Bush, including on the Democratic side, with everyone marching head on into militaristic imperialism that broke the bank and led to the looting of the surplus former President Bill Clinton left his successor, which after 9/11 led this nation to ill repute in Iraq and the policies of torture and all manner of infamy.

It’s rather ironic that the Republican right is eviscerating John Brennan, a man who is part of that old guard system of forced interrogation, as well as Obama’s drone policy. Deep background and fact checking isn’t a strong suit of neoconservatives. They go for the top level cream, which begins and ends with Israel, but rarely if ever has anything to do with the actual practicalities of what would make Israel more secure.

Israel’s security and Middle East peace cannot happen without a mutually agreed upon Palestinian state.

This purge of realists by the right, which goes beyond the Arabist philosophical practicalities Republicans used to embrace, is also behind the virulent swiftboating of Chuck Hagel. He dared to learn from the disaster of Iraq, the neoconservative’s baby to which Kristol, McCain, Graham and others remain attached. Hagel also is against imperialism, the other cause of Republican neoconservatism, which fuels the military industrial complex that Republicans, as well as Democrats like Truman and Clinton, have sought to bolster.

But just maybe… could it be?

In his second term, President Obama has begun to make a move towards bringing the Pentagon budget into focus, if only barely, which is in direct contrast to every Democrat who’s been president in the modern era, whether we’re talking Truman or Clinton. In fact, there is foreshadowing of what John F. Kennedy envisioned for American defense, including the role of Special Forces, but also drones, which like it or not, progressives and liberal independents vehemently do not, would have been something I believe Kennedy would have seen as a viable alternative to large armies of boots on the ground. Civilian casualties meant to always be avoided, in the age of symmetrical threats, Kennedy would also likely have taken the risk to get the bad guys. Both smaller footprint, smaller budget, are being foreshadowed through the picks of Hagel and Brennan in Obama’s second term, though who knows if anything of worth can manifest.

In contrast, a Romney win would have unleashed the neoconservatives, who would have expanded upon the bad old George W. Bush days.

If there was such a thing as an “Arabist” today in American politics it would actually be a turning point. Not only for the sake of U.S. foreign policy, but for the Israeli – Palestinian peace as well.

Of course, this discussion still ignores that monetary aid and governmental-private partnerships, something Secretary Clinton talks about frequently, remain the most important weapon in the world arsenal yet to be fully exploited, if we’re ever going to establish the dream of peace on earth.

Unfortunately, as far as neoconservatives are concerned, peace is the enemy of their hopes of power being resurrected. It’s why they feed off Middle East hysteria and hype it whenever they possibly can.